1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 1, 2017 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 2017Da2847 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

(a) The registration number / the filing date/registration date of the instant registered trademark: The designated goods: C/D/E composition of the goods classified into Category C/E: C/O: C/O: C/O, c/C c/C 03 of the classification of the goods; the e/C c/C c/C c/ water cream; the f/C c/ white c/ carbon c/ carbon c/ carbon c/ ec/ ec/ gal;

B. On September 5, 2017, the Defendant filed a petition against the Plaintiff for revocation of trademark registration, seeking revocation of trademark registration on all the designated goods of the instant registered trademark on the ground that the Patent Tribunal was not in use as 2017Da2847.

(2) On December 1, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal did not assert or prove that the Plaintiff had justifiable grounds for not using the registered trademark of this case for at least one of the designated goods. As such, Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the Trademark Act, which was wholly amended by Act No. 1403, Feb. 29, 2016, provides that “this Act shall apply from the filing date of an application for trademark registration filed after this Act enters into force,” and the registered trademark of this case shall be subject to Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act, since the filing date is D before the enforcement date of the Trademark Act, Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act shall apply to this case.

Therefore, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal’s determination by applying Article 119(1)3 of the current Trademark Act is erroneous, but since Article 73(1)3 of the former Trademark Act and Article 119(1)3 of the current Trademark Act are substantially identical, such error does not adversely affect the outcome of the trial decision.

Pursuant to the above, the decision of this case was rendered that the trademark registration should be revoked.

[Reasons for Recognition] Confession (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Whether the trial decision of this case is unlawful

A. The plaintiff is a non-exclusive licensee who obtained permission from the plaintiff to use the registered trademark of this case.